I was thinking urinalysis, which I was always told was ~30 days. It doesn’t change the argument.
C-level or anyone in the company exempt? Do we monitor alcohol usage so closely? Would people tolerate it if we did? Federal law is the only reasonable basis for an employer to be testing for off the clock use of a drug that is legal or decriminalized in that state. Otherwise it’s an invasion of privacy. And yes, it is, whether you tell me it legally is or not.
The moment there isn’t federal law to lean on, I hope for and expect court cases predicated on the fact that there’s no basis for an employer to care more about whether someone has smoked cannabis in the past thirty days than they do about whether that same employee gets blackout drunk every Friday and Saturday night - nor for that matter if the person responsibly drinks a couple beers after work some nights. (Or is someone pushing to detect alcohol use within the past 30 days as a reason to disqualify employment?)
Neither of those details of their lives speaks to someone’s sobriety at work, and the basis for considering marijuana usage as somehow “worse” is rooted directly in the racist basis for policies enacted at the very start of cannabis prohibition.
The reality is that drug tests just like felony checks are very good filters for bad employees.
If this is true, drug testing should start at the CEO.
Edit2: Hanging onto this for 2 months before replying, or just like trolling through old cannabis discussions looking for an argument, or…?
It wasn’t a comparison to Gotti except for a lamentation that the name has been used already. Though if it ends with Trump behind bars too, I can’t complain. I’d like to feel some of this turns out to be more than just an annoying inconvenience for him.
fwiw in the future you can find out the path to your drives and their uuid if needed with
lsblk -f
I didn’t realize that. That’s disheartening.
It’s hard for me to imagine 2024 not being the year they do.
I was about to say “How would people know who you meant?” but I’m pretty sure it would catch on.
I mean the physical design of the gun, not the projectile or effect.
I’m a simple man. Same answer for decades.
Someone somewhere is already planning how they will get people to work around the clock this way, and someone else somewhere is probably desperate enough to feed themselves or their family that they’ll take it when offered.
Yep. No reason not to think it isn’t just corporate greed again.
(from the article about the previous insane egg prices)
In absolutely unrelated news, eggs are suddenly incredibly expensive. A dozen “conventional” eggs are currently averaging $2.88, which is double what they cost a year ago. Supposedly, this is caused by a supply chain shock (an avian flu outbreak).
But – and this will shock you, I know – the single company that dominates the US egg industry, Cal-Maine Food (AKA CALM – ugh) is making record profits. Their Q3/22 net was up 65% from the year before. Cal-Maine’s Q4-22 sales were up record-smashing 110% – $801.7m:
The entire apparatus of the United States justice department and executive branch has so far not succeeded in doing more than pissing him off about Jan 06 and election fraud, but this one woman has bloodied his nose repeatedly. Bravo I say!
Maybe this is going to be the one thing he sees actual consequences for.
Side note - pretty sure losing cases like these would have killed anyone else’s political career and presidential aspirations. It’s a real shame we already used up the Teflon Don nickname.
Yeah, I’d think outside of movie-style moments it’s not something that makes sense 99.9% of the time, I just thought it was an interesting claim. It would have been more interesting if it were true. 😁
(to be clear I’m not the guy who made the claim)
I did find a great many links to articles about this one event, but so far nothing to support that they do it regularly.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/world-news/finland-stabbing-suspect-shot-in-leg
and the moment they actually stop and declare peace, the US and EU will seek to tear the rest of their government apart and try to start a civil war, like they’ve done at least 15 times they got involved in a conflict in the last 23 years
If that were true, it would have been a good reason not to invade a neighbor.
The official narrative is that Ukrainian government is illegitimate and ruled by Nazis, abd the country needs to be “liberated” from their rule.
Okay but we, over here on the good side of the sanity line, know that’s not true, right? It justifies nothing.
I had a guy on reddit WAAAY back when the war was just starting (when it was clear they would invade, but either had not yet or had literally just begun hours before) tell me all the Ukrainian citizens had to do was not resist and accept their Russian citizenship, the Russian soldiers were their ethnic bretheren, it would all be over nearly bloodlessly in three days, and of course Putin would not harm anyone if he didn’t have to.
I was in disbelief that he believed this was true, or that he could believe there was any possibility they’d just stand by and let themselves be invaded. A month or so later I dug out the thread and called him out for his ridiculous bullshit (which had already been ridiculous bullshit when he first said it) and he gave me some version of “any bloodshed is the fault of Ukraine” and cursed me out.
I fathom neither how anyone sees Ukraine as anything other than the victim in this war, nor how anyone could ever have thought this would be quick and bloodless.
I could be misremembering, but I feel like I remember them admitting it in Arizona, too.
As brief overview:
I generally only hear people in common conversation complaining that someone told them once that they heard someone say black people can’t be racist. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone in the wild claim it with a straight face - because many people use racism and bigotry interchangeably, and it’s quite plain that anyone can be a bigot. However:
Racism by sociological definition is something that only the group in power can engage in (paraphrasing) so your problem, like most people who bring this up, is probably:
and/or
Here’s a snippet of a definition from an into to sociology:
Racism is a stronger type of prejudice and discrimination used to justify inequalities against individuals by maintaining that one racial category is somehow superior or inferior to others; it is a set of practices used by a racial dominant group to maximize advantages for itself by disadvantaging racial minority groups.
The text goes on to say this doesn’t preclude racial minorities from being prejudiced, bigots, etc.
And finally, and really this was all that truly needed to be said: In my experience, most of what people complain about online as “racism against white people” turns out to be nothing of the sort, and I’m personally doubtful MLK would have had a sympathetic ear for the common examples I see, either.
Edit: Forgot the link.
Edit again: Still forgot the link
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/11-3-prejudice-discrimination-and-racism
Edit - so many edits to be sure I’m saying what I mean to.
Maybe there are some of those people. I still doubt they (or anyone voting for him) is going to be swayed by his use of the N-word.